But here's a take, morality and moral sound a lot alike. Twist that a bit and you get to the same point we were at earlier. An artwork that makes you forget the sorrow. If you are putting a smile on someone's face are you inevitably moralising. By that I mean, you believe in something because it makes you happy, like a romantic couple in a certain light, you know, the blossoming tree or a nice terras with happy people communing in the sun. It makes you happy, it feels good and I think, though am not sure, that it brings you to a godd mporal issue. In this case a good relationship with your girlfriend or a healthy social attitude, maybe even a step to utopian ideals. Who knows. Just for sport, lol.

if you look at it, who defines morality and what gives them the right? There is no physical proof that there is such a thing as universal morality. Some, like me, believe that morality is defined, others feel it cannot be defined.

As some have said, one man's terrorism is another mans fight for freedom. One mans terrorism is another mans politics. One man feels its necesary in his heart, and others are terrified by it.

What seems to be universal are the common themes that are threaded throughout all beliefs systems.

I'd say these two themes are present in all societies, and are necesary for people to live together.

In my opinion their are other themes that help better society. Has artists we help propagate those ideas and spread them, making them popular or unpopular. Themes of anti-racism, politics, and compassion in art are so powerful and necessary.

There are two types of art
1 visually pleasing art that plays with artistic elements to produce an aesthetic that is sensual.

2 art that has an underlying message expressed more profoundly through artistic elements and who's purpose is using the senses to better communicate a state or morality.

I think that is a good summation but I would question the division that you make between aesthetic and message art.

I would suggest that the boundary is at least very blured if not non-existant. For instance, a very 'purely aesthetic' painting might be a blue canvas. Looking at the canvas might make you feel relaxed. This surely is a moral thing. The artist is making people feel relaxed and this is nice. There are also then statements implicit in the art like the idea that artists should please people, that the artist is better at making a square blue than someone else, and it is worth paying money for such a thing.

I guess you could extend that argument to anything at all but still, I think it is important that there are moral aspects to all art whether the artist intends them or not.

Expressing morals in an artwork whether it is a painting, poetry, literature, sculpture or any other medium is not always an easy option. If you live in a tolerant society with acceptance of differences, it is much easier. Here is a personal story I would like to share:

I lived and grew up in Iraq during the rule of Saddam. As a young person, experienced first hand discrimination, imprisonment, and intimidation I had to reflect that in my artwork. The dilemma is how to express something that those in power will not see it as an opposing view and punish my soul. Yes, hundreds of artists, poets have been tortured, imprisoned, fleed the country because of that. I didn't have but one choice. I chose abstract expression with a flare of symbols that are not easy to decipher. The painting was very critical of the brutality of the regime and the intolerance in politics and religious views. I exhibited the painting at the national gallery and the director of the gallery selected my work along with others for a permanent holding of that gallery. If they just knew what it was about, I wouldn't be here writing this.

The artwork is a product of its time. If you choose to express morality and afford to do so, good for you.

Everything is relative to the subject. If everyone chooses to see morals as subjective projections, the world will not go into chaos and disorder, it'll just be different.

but I still argue that art in itself is pleasing to the senses, and therefore can be sensual without teaching a moral.

Wether the artist or the observer labels it with a moral does not effect its ability to appeal to the senses, in and of itself.

So yes a blue square can cause happiness or sadness purely by looking at it, but that is an emotive and sensual response and not a moral response.

obviously if you put the blue square in different contexts it may eventually have a moral. But I argue that in most contexts the blue will make you remember a sad rainy day or a sunny day with a blue sky. Or it will feel deep and emersive as a color, all of which responses would not be moral responses but sensual responses.

the beauty of abstract art is that you can call on those different sensual feelings to convey a message. Have dark colors outlined thickly with heavy lines. This on a subconscouse level would be saying that unhappy feelings are being controlled by controlling and overpowering order. But of course this is relative to the situation of the people. Perhaps in other places dark grey means purity, or freedom. (some people feel they are freed at night for instance)

Originally Posted by John Keates:I am wondering how many people here sit around thinking about moral issues and whether that effects their art.

It seems that there isn't much art around that really deals with moral issues in a big way. There are some people in the 'fine' art world who have an axe to grind, usually some kind of femanism, but not all that many people making moral art to do with other people.

I think that the reason is probably money. People don't want moral messages on their wall and it is hard to make a moral computer game without an overly black and white view of good and evil.

It strikes me that a lot of the art shown on this forum is tacky (to my tastes) even if very well done. Maybe if there was more discussion about the subtler, trickyer aspects of morality then people might make more interesting art?

Don't get me wrong, this is not meant as a blanket statement about this commnity (I have huge respect for a lot of people here), it is just that the range of subject matter seems rather slim and a lot of potential seems to get missed.

There is a huge amount of talent in the commercial art world and it seems to me that there is a lot of un-tapped power here.

1) There is way too much intolerance for morality these days; a piction depicting would be bitched about instead of considering it a challenge.

Your story reminds me of some of the things that have happened in the Chinese art world.

In China they have quite poor human rights laws and no animal rights laws. Artists have started to make statements about this with very brutal art which would be illegal or qeustionable in many countries but not in China.

For example. One guy made a huge curtain many metres tall and wide out of live animals stitched together with wire. There were snakes, frogs etc all wrything away and the thing moved around as a result.

Another guy chopped off his hand and made a hand print of it!!

These are very extreem measures but powerfull.

It would be a pity if people in countries where they can freely express themselves held back from doing so whilst other people die for that right.

Pushing the "what is Morality?" question aside for a moment, there's also an issue of how somebody should introduce moral value in his/her art. How involved is the viewer in the decision of what is moral? In Enayla's post she mentioned the heavy handed, iconic imagery of a fox being crushed by the clog. The artist makes the decision -- the fox is a living thing, the clog represents destruction and Sweden simultaneously. There's little room for the viewer's opinion unless he rejects the artist's premise entirely. (No offense meant to Enayla, BTW. I assume this is why she dislikes the piece).

I prefer work where the artist has left a question for the viewer. There's a piece that Goro did last year as a Daily Sketch Topic and I hope he doesn't mind my providing a link: http://www.area-56.de/pics/cgtalk/s...p/evil_twin.jpg
It presents a scene and invites the viewer to come to his own conclusion. Sure, the piece is called "Evil Twin". Sure, the victor is devil colored. The artist has quietly indicated whom he thinks is the guilty party through via the red color, but there's so much left unsaid. Was Red always evil or is this the effect of a computer virus? Does he need the battery or was his aim to eliminate Blue? At the very least, the viewer is shown a scene and is left to open speculation. What's more, the robot is just a robot. It doesn't represent Sweden or racism.

BTW, as far as CGTalk is concerned, I think the CGChoice galleries are a great place to see technically brilliant pieces. Some of them have a strong narrative, but it's not a requirement. If you're looking for strong narrative and moral content, check out the CGChallenges. As John Keates mentioned, it's easier to spend a lot of time (2-3 months for Challenges) on a piece if you feel strongly about the subject matter. Also, the posts from other people play a part in shaping the content of each artist's piece, helping them to refine a rough or vacuous concept IMO.

Ashakarc, I'm thoroughly impressed by your somewhat punk-like attitude to the systems imposed. And it's a privilige for me to be able to learn here from you. Hats off.

I do not mean to be crude, now but your views and expressions always seemed a bit cynical or desolate at times to me personally. I see you have been denied your freedom in the past and I would've been far more bitter at that probably. I do so now wish you would make a "twin painting" to accompany the first piece and send it to the gallery if it still stands, or the gallery currently holding your work. It would conclude the event maybe. I personnally would be very curious after reading such information as you have just so strikingly portrayed. Wouldn't you find it a marvel too. Do you have a link or a digital version that you could share with us. I'm insanely curious.

Originally Posted by lovisx:As some have said, one man's terrorism is another mans fight for freedom. One mans terrorism is another mans politics. One man feels its necesary in his heart, and others are terrified by it.

I agree mostly with your post but this bit struck me to some point. I think that the ones doing terrorism are clearly aware of the suffering they inflict but they seem to believe that it's necessary, usually I hear that these acts are accompanied in most cultures with ritual. Something that leads me to believe that they're letting themselves be bent if you understand what I'm saying. I do believe there's a basic understanding of values, a sort of empathy in all of us. Even they believe there's a sanity to their madness.

edit: and I DO mean to some point, not all the way. just thought I'd stress it. Never know how fast people read. No offense.

Originally Posted by lovisx:But even in that art the artist is teaching a moral. That we need to have our own morals and discern things for ourselves, and not leave it to others decided for us.

I agree.

A while back, someone posted a painting with a depiction of, what I perceived at least, a common man... with his hands and mouth tied off with an American flag.

Now, just because I thought that it was inaccurate to what the social message was meant to be didn't stop that person from making it and posting it.

Lesson learned: express yourself freely; who cares what the other person feels. The minute we sensor ourselves for the sake of others (even though there is still new content continually being created that may offend you) we no longer live in a society of free expression.

Originally Posted by jmBoekestein:Ashakarc, I'm thoroughly impressed by your somewhat punk-like attitude to the systems imposed. And it's a privilige for me to be able to learn here from you. Hats off.

I do not mean to be crude, now but your views and expressions always seemed a bit cynical or desolate at times to me personally. I see you have been denied your freedom in the past and I would've been far more bitter at that probably. I do so now wish you would make a "twin painting" to accompany the first piece and send it to the gallery if it still stands, or the gallery currently holding your work. It would conclude the event maybe. I personnally would be very curious after reading such information as you have just so strikingly portrayed. Wouldn't you find it a marvel too. Do you have a link or a digital version that you could share with us. I'm insanely curious.

Yeh, thanks jmBoekestein, I'm humbled.

I am not a cynic nor bitter, but no realist either. In my views, I don't try convince as much as to let others see and think about it. Desolate will be closer to my views as something that I inherited from the past to survive the 'cosine curve' ride I've been through.

I can share this one that is closer to the painting that I referred to earlier, but I have no means to know if it is still there, epecially after the post-invasion mass looting in Baghdad. A twin one will be good to followup, but I doubt it will be concluding,

Wonderful! You are a very good artist! I love the "grey aura" in it, the canvas seems to make it live. Yes, desolate is the word for what I was thinking, but you still have the creation to you, and that makes you non desolate imho. Maybe desperate is what I wanted to say, intricacies elude the simple mind e=when watching the whole.

Thanks for sharing, it's great! I really love it, I usually don't understand abstract art, but here's more things/aspects that I think I can understand, if you undertsand what I mean. Hopefully things will quiet down over there in a year or a few and you'll be able to if you want. Hats off once again.

Follow Us On:

The CGSociety

The CGSociety is the most respected and accessible global organization for creative digital artists. The CGS supports artists at every level by offering a range of services to connect, inform, educate and promote digital artists worldwide. More about us on TheArtSociety.com